This should be my last political post for awhile. After all, the election is over. Kerry is going to lose and lose big. If he carries more than a couple of states, I'll be amazed.
Dan Rather has issued a written statement that the memos he relied on as the basis for the 60 Minutes story were crap.
I haven't been this shocked since Rosie O'Donnell came out of the closet.
It turns out that the papers did originate from Bill Burkett, who passed them on to Max Cleland to give to the Kerry campaign. What still isn't clear is whether Burkett approached CBS directly, or if the documents went through the Kerry campaign, as some folks in CBS have claimed.
I'm sure all the lefties who continued to tout the authenticity of the memos will now issue retractions and apologies.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
This should be the end of CBS News, Dan Rather, and if the documents passed through the Kerry campaign, Kerry as well.
Will we see an in depth investigation a la "All The President's Men" Will Michael Moore now make a movie about how Dan Rather and CBS lied to the American people? What did Kerry know and when did he know it? Paging Mr. Woodward and Bernstein; you're needed at CBS.
Like that'll happen. Kerry is a Democrat; he'll get a pass from the mainstream press.
But it's OK. Doesn't matter. Between cable news, Fox, the internet, the blogosphere, media bias is history as a force in politics. There are too many alternative sources for news and info. The word will get out, just as it did over those putrid memos.
Blinded by their own ideology, a major news organization went public with a deeply flawed story, based on obviously forged documents, without proper corroberation of the documents, all in an attempt to sway an election to their candidate. With scandals at The New York Time, USA Today, the Boston Globe, and now CBS, it's been a bad year for big media.
Cool.
Posted by Rich at September 20, 2004 1:04 PM | TrackBackvia dailyhowler.com:
"The emergence of the CBS story kills any last chance we may have had for an intelligent campaign discourse. This detective story will supersede Iraq, as Gary Condit superseded everything else in the delicious summer before 9/11. It’s part of your nation’s fallen culture; you’re now part of a vacuous nation, a country incapable of conducting real discourse. (For the records, the obsession with Bush’s Nat Guard service is as dumb as the focus on Rather.) Everything changed on September 11—everything changed except for that! And guess what, readers? When al Qaeda destroys New York with a bomb, we’ll be debating the latest irrelevance. The next day, well-trained pundits will yell “liberal bias” when some news outlet short-waves the thought that things in New York look quite bad."
Posted by: howie on September 21, 2004 8:39 PMJust out of curiousity, was Watergate and it's subsequent coverup also representative of a country incapable of conducting real discourse?
Why is it that anything that makes liberals look bad not worthy of discussion.
Try a little experiment, howie. Suppose Fox news has aired obviously forged documents claiming that Kerry indulged in actual atrocities in Viet Nam. I'n talking baby killing or some equally heinous acts. Further suppose that the source for these forgeries was a well known freeper and right wing zealot. Further suppose that the RNC and the Bush campaign were inplicated in the whole shebang.
Can you honestly say that if that were the case, you'd still feel we should move past it and talk about the "really" important topics?
And out of morbid curiousity, what are the really important topics that haven't been discussed. I can understand your confusion, since your candidate has yet to give any real detailed plans on what he would do if elected, and any plan he has suggested has quickly been changed to fit the current polling data.
On the other hand, which Bush platform issue are you in doubt about? Which of his plans don't you understand? Obviously, I expect that you'll disagree with most of his positions, but then again, at least he has positions you can disagree with.
The real problem here is that the "important issues" have been discussed, and at some length.
And it is clear that Kerry loses on the issues.
That's why he's run a smoke and mirrors campaign. That';s why the first several months of his campaign reduced down to two items: he fought in Viet Nam, and he's not George Bush.
I'll give it this much; it's concise.
Tell you what. You're more than welcome to bring up any issue you'd like to see discussed. I'll present the Bush side, with documenting links, and you can do the same for Kerry. Since the candidates aren't going to engage in a real debate, we can do it for them.
Are you game?
Posted by: rich on September 22, 2004 2:41 AMHave you seen the Onion article titled, “Kerry pushes One Point Plan for America”, showing Kerry on the campaign trail, next to an x-ed out sign saying “Bush”? Pretty spot on.
As you may have been able to tell by now, I am not a Kerry supporter. I’m holding my nose on voting day, again, and I don’t have unrealistic expectations about a Kerry presidency. So I’m not the best person to debate the issues as a stand in, because frankly, they don’t disagree much on issues like Iraq, North Korea, poverty, fighting corporate crime, or education. Actually, I agree with Kerry that we should take a scientific view on things like evolution—what a concept, huh?
There’re issues I wish would be addressed in a realistic way, but won’t. I’d rather discuss those: new nuclear programs, the Israeli spy situation, the draft, the deficit, national security since 9-11… watch the debates be about gay marriage and who’s a better military leader. Pretty unenlightened.
I mentioned it in a previous post, but KERRY IS NOT A LIBERAL. His economic and militaristic policies are right-of-center, and his social stance is only moderately left. Again, I encourage you to take a vist to politicalcompass.org. I found it an interesting way to spend a few minutes; the FAQ’s are compelling as well. Sorry I can’t address the “Woodward and Bernstein” subject right now, maybe later.